I love both The Chronicles Of Riddick and Pitch Black. I can't stand Eli Roth (this is an unpopular opinion in the horror community) I can't stand Rob Zombie (same as above)

These aren't opinions, they are facts about you

Was that supposed to be an insult or were you being obtuse? Okay, I should have said that I don't like the films of Eli Roth or Rob Zombie. I will edit it to not cause any future confusion, because people may not think that my opinions are coming from myself. Rather, they may think that my opinions are coming from a space alien or a gigantic killer robot. Do I get a cookie now?

Tom Cruise the person I have no time for. However, Tom Cruise the movie star makes some extremely enjoyable movies. Doesn't really matter to me if all I see is Tom Cruise. Although it would be nice if he took more roles that required him to act. The Last Samurai and Collateral are both films from the last decade that shows that he is capable of a lot more. The Last Samurai is probably one of his most under-rated films... the scenes with him and Ken Watanabe are great.

Also, other actors may do their own stunts, but I'm pretty sure Cruise did his before this was common-place. And I'm pretty sure none of them have done things like climb the tallest building in the world (with wires, but that still takes serious balls). Most just do a crash-course in kung fu.

Reminds me of something that Adam Tod Brown wrote at Cracked, "Tom Cruise is the Tom Hanks of people I would never want to hang out with". Except that that sentiment wouldn't apply to me. We'd go base jumping and solve crimes and drive stunt motor bikes and eat ice-cream and ...

I've really tried to give his films a chance but I just can't like them. I'm going to totally skip Lords Of Salem, I don't feel like being tortured again.

I've only seen The Devils Rejects. I used to really like it, but I re-watched it last year some time and I found a lot of the dialogue quite cringe inducing, especially the 'Tutti-fuckin'-Fruity!' scene.

he is my favourite director of all time, but i reeeaaaally don't like a clockwork orange that much (unpopular opinion) and I'd say it's kubrick's worst right after eyes wide shut (popular opinion)

This is interesting timing as I just saw a late night screening of it just last night in Brighton! Never better for me, it really comes to life on the big screen and remains one of Kubrick's finest ever films.

Enjoyed Zombie's debut, not seen Devil's Rejects, and thought his Halloween was one of the worst films I have seen in a very long time.

Not with you regarding Star TREK ' 09.It was great, as were the SW prequels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'd say quite bad - but I'm not sure even it was quite that bad.

Guess I should explain- first, I kinda enjoy the prequels. They're not perfect, but they're not the abominations everyone makes them out to be.

Second, for all their flaws, the prequels at least weren't ashamed of being Star Wars films. They didn't try and be anything other than big, brash popcorn-fuelled space war films with jedi and lasers. Yes, the writing was bad and the acting wooden, but AFAIC the exact same criticism could be levelled at the originals. Star Wars was always space opera, and the prequels tried to carry that on, whether you ended up liking them or not.

Star Trek is different. The original Star Trek wasn't just a space opera, it was (without wanting to sound like a breathless neckbeard) a challenging piece of sci-fi television which offered (for the time) genuinely complex moral conundrums with which to challenge the audience. Star Trek wasn't a tale of good vs evil, it was the story of a crew being faced with extraordinary philosophical and moral challenges. This was the TV show that turned racial notions of the time on their head by having a multi-ethnic, multi-gender crew. At a period when racism and sexism were still common currency, ST was genuinely trailblazing in how it brought big philosophical themes and ideas of equality to a mainstream level.

Star Trek '09 has none of that. It's a big, loud, stupid action film with some laughable attempts at philosophy penned by the guys who wrote the Transformers films. There's nothing challenging about it. There's no attempt to challenge the status quo, no attempt to try and appeal to people's higher instincts. Instead, it just panders to the lowest demographic, which is shameful for a Star Trek film. To go from challenging racial assumptions and introducing millions of viewers to philosophical ideas to PEW-PEW-EXPLOSIONS, lol-drugs-jokes and a nonsensical plot filled with half-baked exposition is more of a failure than anything the prequels could have managed.

I've seen just over half of the original Trek film, 1-5 and Nemesis, and found each of them pretty dull. Genuinely looking forward to Into Darkness though because I thought the last film was great fun.

< Message edited by Harry Tuttle -- 24/4/2013 10:33:52 AM >

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Star Trek 09 was so empty you could have used it to drain the entire Lake District.

The plot made no sense and came across as a terrible piece of fanfiction, the characters were charicatures of their former selves, and it had none of the ethical or philosophical heft that made Star trek what it was in the first place. And Star Trek without a decent moral conundrum or two just isn't Star Trek at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

It's the only entry into the Star Trek canon I've watched and haven't been bored rigid by.

Wrath Of Khan was awesome. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

The Killing of Joe's wife bit in that video irks me. The guy who shot her could have been startled, or maybe was just an idiot, and it also doesn't mean they didn't get into a huge amount of trouble for it afterwards.